Defendant appealed a decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Defendant had filed a Motion for Discovery and, when none was forthcoming, a Motion to Compel Discovery, which was granted by the court. At trial, Defendant moved to exclude evidence based upon the clear discovery violation. Instead, the trial judge offered a continuance of the trial, but Defendant chose to forego that remedy. Defendant was convicted after trial, and the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial judge. At the District Court, Defendant argued that the Appeals Panel erred because the remedy provided by the trial judge was inappropriate.

When a discovery order is not complied with, Rule 11(f)(2) of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure provides a trial judge with the discretion to, among other things, grant a continuance. Pursuant to Rule 11(f)(2), when a discovery order is not complied with, the remedy to be provided is left to the sole discretion of the trial judge. At trial, Defendant was offered a continuance. When he chose to forgo the remedy offered by the trial court, Defendant waived his right to a remedy. As such, the District Court held that the Appeals Panel did not err. Accordingly, the District Court affirmed the Appeals Panel’s decision.